Thomas Jefferson held first White House Ramadan celebration

Earlier this week, President Barack Obama made a statement acknowledging Ramadan and his plans to again host an iftar at the White House. A state department website posted about the first White House iftar, held by President Thomas Jefferson in 1805:

Jefferson’s guest was Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, an envoy from the bey (chieftain) of Tunis who spent six months in Washington. The context of Mellimelli’s visit to the United States was a tense dispute over piracy on American merchant vessels by the Barbary states and the capture of Tunisian vessels trying to run an American blockade of Tripoli.

Mellimelli arrived during Ramadan, and Jefferson, when he invited the envoy to the president’s house, changed the meal time from the usual hour of 3:30 p.m. to “precisely at sunset” in deference to the man’s religious obligation.

Jefferson’s knowledge of Islam likely came from his legal studies of natural law. In 1765, Jefferson purchased a two-volume English translation of the Quran for his personal library, a collection that became, in 1815, the basis of the modern Library of Congress.

Obama referenced that interaction from 200 years ago at last year’s iftar dinner. The president himself is a Christian and has made a tradition of holiday celebrations in the White House, including the iftar, a Passover seder for Jewish staffers and a number of prayer breakfasts with pastors from across the country.

You cannot know the content of another person’s heart or truly know his/her personal relationship with Christ.

Actions speak a lot louder than words. I have seen a lot in terms of actions by the folks you claim to KNOW are Christians that would make me wonder, IF it were any of my business.

A person’s relationship with God is PERSONAL. If one goes around public proclaiming it, while at the same time behaving in a manner that does not suggest a close personal relationship with God, I will probably not trust his/her professions of faith. I have met very few (if any) politicians whose actions suggest to me that he/she has a close, personal relationship with Christ. None on your list would qualify.

It takes more than being hated by the mainstream media to determine whether or not a person is a Christian. Again, it is a personal issue and, unless you are God, you cannot see into another’s heart.

Very true godiva. Hope to see you Saturday! Osama obama celebrates islam is great with liberals. But when perry celebrates religious diversity; they treat him like the anti-christ. Dimwitliberals are just hippocrits

Godiva, that’s the biggest bunch of crap I’ve ever seen you post on the Chron pages, and that’s saying something.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are you the same Jeff Texas Spakle takes down almost every single day?

Honey I’ve read your stuff too, so I take your criticism AS A COMPLIMENT.

This is a very appropriate precedent: As the famous Treaty of Tripoli (which was unanimously approved by the U.S. Senate in 1797) states, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion….” Ours is not a Christian government, it is a secular government that does not play favorites with one religion or another.

Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate for the President of the United States to celebrate the religious diversity of our country. And after all, diversity is one of the most beautiful and important characteristics of our great country!

It is an oversimplification to say that the treaty represents a supporting document for those who would claim Jefferson’s wall of separation prevented all free practice of religion. It is opinion that America is a Christian country based on the principals used in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and especially the First Amendment. The Constitution never says that America was founded on the Christian religion, a sticking point in agreement in the Tripoli accord. Surah 9.5 prevents a Muslim leader from negotiation with infidels and is, in fact, ordered to kill them. Had Barlow not included this statement, the agreement, even with the bribe, would not have taken place. There is a difference between saying that America was founded “on the Christian religion” vs saying that America is (or was) a Christian nation. Look, I understand your position and it’s your right to argue the point but let’s use history accurately. If Jefferson’s wall is so absolute and you want to use the Barlow “treaty” to argue against all things Christian, then why would the same document then claim that the United States celebrates religious diversity and further claim that such diversity is “one of the most beautiful and important characteristics of our great country.” Either religion is an important principal in the founding of our country or it is not. Jefferson does not say a “wall of separation between state (the federal government) and Christianity.” No, he says “religion.” And that is a direct comment on King George’s headship of the Church of England. Sorry, your argument is not valid. A treaty cannot replace any word, clause or phrase of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and takes second place to legislative intent and to personal writings of those who authored both. Barlow did neither.

Just a tad tired of hearing about these Ramadan stories every year. Not that they’re not interesting, but it’s gotten to overkill.

How about some stories or articles this winter on that holiday we’re not supposed to say out loud, you know the one we just call “holiday” but is really supposed to be called Christmas? Would be a refreshing change.

Liberals idolize Jefferson, even though he was a life-long slave-owner who probably had sex with one or more of his slaves. Jefferson felt right at home with Muslims, who practiced slavery in his time and continue to practice it today.

Does Obama not have qualms about citing precedents from a slave-owner?

Not quite. If Obama (or Bush43 or any other president) only celebrated/honored/whatevered the holidays of a specific religion, then it would be a violation of the separation of church and state as it promotes one religion above others. But if he celebrates the holidays of a number of religions, then it is not, according to the US Supreme Court.

if you want to see diversity in action, go visit leon county texas, they are very diverse, they hate blacks, mexicans,jews,moslums catholics, and
indians. so they claim to be highly diversified, not just hating one race or religon.
now thats a texas fact. (makes one want to up chuck,but they are proud of it)

I spend 3 days a week in Leon and Madison counties and this is news to me. Not saying there aren’t pockets but I wouldn’t condemn the entire county. I’ve been suprised at how friendly most people are out there regardless of what ethnicity, religion, etc. you are. Remember your manners and they remember theirs.

When was the last time that Perry held an iftar or seder? If Perry’s prayer rally includes Muslims, Bahai, Jews, and Buddhists, it is news to me.

Do you see the difference? Obama (and Bush before him, and Clinton before him, and Bush before him) is being inclusive; he is reaching out to other faiths to let them know that they are welcome here. Perry is being exclusive; he is saying “Only Christians need apply”. The position taken by Obama (and Bush43, Clinton, and Bush41) is constitutional. The position taken by Perry is not.

More political cover for Obama. The lame scream media is a very scary entity in post modern America. They have no problem eagerly and shamelessly promoting Islam, but are loath to do remotely the same for Christianity or Judaism.

This part of the Treaty may be construed, as its critics do, to be ended mid-sentence after the clause “Christian religion”; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates as signed. But even if shortened and cut abruptly (“the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion”), this is not an untrue statement since it is only referring to the federal government and not to the Nation itself. The purpose of the Treaty statement was to dispel prejudice against the USA that since the USA was a Christian nation, that the USA would necessarily be engaged in a continuation of the European Christian Crusades against the Muslim Jihads.

While the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the Treaty article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation as well as the States that were served by the Federal government.

President Adams declared:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. 26

Adams’ own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation.

The Treaty was not disavowing the Christianity of the USA, the Treaty was disavowing any religious obligation by the Federal government to continue the Crusade Jihad conflict so that a Christian USA could attempt to conduct international business without the religious conflict.

Dave Barton (and you) just love taking snippets of longer exchanges and crafting them to meet your ideologies. He took that quote completely out of context (as is frequently done by those with a point to prove) and cobbled it together from a much longer paragraph written in response to a letter from Jefferson.

Let me give you some academic advice, though I expect you won’t take it. Anytime you read a quote with ellipsis, check the source. It usually means an author has left out bits he/she finds inconvenient.

President Barack Obama made a statement acknowledging Ramadan and his plans to again host an iftar at the White House.===== ====== ============
So Osama obama endorses, embraces and celebrates islam and the dimwitliberals are ok with that; but perry having an all religion day of prayer; and he’s the anti-christ! Dimwitliberals are ALL mentally ill

This is clearly over stretching facts. What Jefferson did was no “Ramadan celebration”. He was merely doing what any civilized host would do – he changed the meal time to sunset. That is all. Quit twisting the facts to please a certain segment of your readership.

“…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11283

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, and John Adams, then American Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote of funding. To Congress, these two future presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims’ hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
“……that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011325.php

Iran and Saudi Arabia are far more “Islamic nations” than America is a christian one, and I say that as a Bible believing christian. Whether we were founded as a christian nation or not is a debate we can have, but a “christian nation”–whatever we think that might be–certainly wouldn’t be one where 50 million children were killed before birth, or pornography was available at every turn, would it? I’m not even sure I’d want America to be a “christian nation”, lest it be of a kind I don’t care for. Would I want to live in a Catholic nation, a Baptist nation, a Pentecostal nation, a United Methodist nation, a southern snake handling nation, or Episcopal nation? Not really. A secular nation has its problems, no doubt. But there are other forms that I might not like much better.